EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REPORT Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REPORT Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the Union Policy Department Economic and Scientific Policy TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON CONVERGING TECHNOLOGIES (IP/A/STOA/SC/2005-183) IP/A/STOA/ST/2006-6 PE 375.882 This report was commissioned by the European Parliament implementing Framework Contract IP/A/STOA/FWC/2005-28. Only published in English. Authors: ETAG European Technology Assessment Group Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Danish Board of Technology (DBT), Copenhagen Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment (viWTA), Brussels Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), London Rathenau Institute, The Hague Robby Berloznik, viWTA Raf Casert, viWTA Robby Deboelpaep,viWTA Rinie van Est, Rathenau Christien Enzing, Rathenau Marc van Lieshout, Rathenau Anouschka Versleijen, Rathenau Administrator: Theo Karapiperis Policy Department A - Economy and Science Internal Policies Directorate-General European Parliament Rue Wiertz 60 - office number B-1047 Brussels ATR 0L004 Tel: +32-2-2843812 Fax: +32-2-2849002 E-mail: [email protected] .eu Manuscript completed in October 2006. The opinions expressed in this document do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and receives a copy. Rue Wiertz – B-1047 Bruxelles - 32/2.284.43.74 Fax: 32/2.284.68.05 Palais de l‘Europe – F-67000 Strasbourg - 33/3.88.17.25.56 Fax: 33/3.88.36.92.14 E-mail: [email protected] IP/A/STOA/ST/2006-6 PE 375.882 Contents Contents 1. Executive overview ................................................................................................................i 1.1. Background, literature study and vision assessment ....................................................ii 1.1.1. Background ..........................................................................................................iii 1.1.2. Synthesis of the vision assessment......................................................................iii 1.1.3. Synthesis of the literature study..........................................................................iv 1.2. Synthesis of the outcome of the workshop in the European Parliament .................... v 1.2.1. Main conclusions of the workshop.......................................................................v 1.2.2. Recommendations and further research questions for STOA.............................v 2. Introduction and background ............................................................................................... 1 2.1. Background.....................................................................................................................1 2.2. Project setup ...................................................................................................................2 3. Workshop...............................................................................................................................3 3.1. Venue ..............................................................................................................................3 3.2. Scheme of the workshop debate between invited experts.............................................3 3.3. Overview of the workshop debates ................................................................................4 3.4. Main conclusions of the workshop.................................................................................7 3.5. Workshop recommendations for STOA.........................................................................8 3.5.1. Recommendations of the experts .........................................................................8 3.5.2. Further research questions for STOA...................................................................9 List of Annexes ............................................................................................................................10 Annex 1: Literature study.........................................................................................................11 Annex 2: Vision assessment....................................................................................................63 Annex 3: Short CV’s of the experts invited to the workshop .................................................85 Annex 4: List of attendants of the workshop .........................................................................91 1. EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW 1.1. Background, literature study and vision assessment 1.1.1. Background When Belgium inaugurated its first rail connection in 1835, between Brussels and Mechelen, there were fears that the La Fleche locomotive would hiss and puff to such an extent that scared cows alongside the track would stop producing milk. That was not necessarily a laughing matter since dairy products were a big deal at the time. Fortunately, the cream kept flowing and the rail network quickly became an engine for Belgium's industrial growth. Twenty years ago, Europeans' concerns over nuclear energy had largely been lulled to sleep when, at night, clouds of nuclear contamination suddenly started spreading from the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine, again raising fears of a technological doomsday. Fear and loathing about new technologies are timeless. Yet the recent 20th anniversary of Chernobyl serves as a stark reminder that man has to tread carefully when dealing with technology. Little has changed over the years, also in the way that politicians handle new technology. They seek a middle ground between progress and protection. They don't always succeed but the more information they have, the better they can assess the possibilities and dangers ahead. At the moment, the outlines of the next challenge are being drawn: converging technologies. Behind those seemingly innocuous words lies a realm of possibilities which can change everything, from the way we think to the way we live and the way we die – if death itself cannot be beaten. The technologies will be based on how the different sectors of the nano, bio, info and cogno sciences (NBIC in short) dovetail their applications through smart interaction, creating a true multitude of the sums of their parts. A vision assessment (as annex 2 in this report) with four well known experts in different disciplines not only gave a creative and original vision to the subject, but also showed that it is meaningful to understand the dynamics of a debate in their individual field of research or technological activity. Such is the promise that just about everyone involved talks about the ‘changing of an age and not the age of changing,’ to quote Josephine Green, Senior Director of Trends and Strategy at Philips Design. Together with the computer capacity rate, developments will gain a dizzying speed. All kinds of curves are produced, starting with the agrarian revolution, moving past the industrial one and, now, right up to the dawn of the NBIC technology convergence revolution. It will be spearheaded by such concepts as nanotechnology and cognitive sciences. And if the curve of the first two revolutions only showed a mild rise upward over centuries, the converging technologies will make the curve steeper over the next decades, if not mere years. All this is based on the assumption that computer capacity development continues, unchecked by political intervention. At a certain point, development will multiply so fast that, in theory, the curve will become almost vertical. It is an assumption that by the time we get to this point of 'singularity’, it will be driven by machines with superhuman intelligence. Eventually, people like Ray Kurzweil say, man and machine will merge. New applications will be rife as the development curve surges upward. In the United States, it is driven by defense and military needs and will produce smarter soldiers and better IP/A/STOA/ST/2006-6 Page i PE 375.882 technology doing the work of more humans. In the medical field, aging will be slowed, disease curtailed and life extension will add years of, hopefully pleasurable, living for many millions. The technological drive behind the Human Genome project is a case in point. Some say immortality soon will be no longer a pipe dream. Through ambient intelligence social interaction will change, with the ability to create stronger bonds between citizens and a better democracy. Others say though that the technology will increase social surveillance, bringing visions of ‘1984’ and ‘Brave New World’ closer by. So, just as much as a capacity to provide technological answers, the converging technologies also pose philosophical questions about the boundaries of humankind, nature and life. Or, as author Joel Garreau puts it, about technological heaven and hell. On the one side are the true believers in the potential of technology to make individuals ever more perfect. Transhumanism is a political expression of that. Many believe in what is considered science fiction now. ‘Ultimately we will merge with our technology’, said Kurzweil. ‘By the mid 2040s, the non-biological portion of our intelligence will be billions of times more capable than the biological portion.’ It is the theory that mankind has to be enhanced. The individual of the 21st century is now only a primitive specimen compared to what it will be in the future through the application of technologies. Anyone opposing the drastic application